Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: (Brampton)CV-20-4118 DATE: 2022-12-13 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Neerav Sood, Plaintiff AND: City of Mississauga, Defendant
BEFORE: Conlan J.
COUNSEL: Mr. Neerav Sood, Self-Represented Ms. Daron Earthy, for the Defendant
HEARD: December 13, 2022
Endorsement
Overview
1By Zoom on today’s date, in less than 50 minutes of total Court time, both sides made oral submissions on the Defendant City of Mississauga’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss the Plaintiff’s trip and fall claim.
2As he is self-represented, the Court permitted Mr. Sood to refer to documents during his submissions that were not properly uploaded to the correct “bundle” on CaseLines.
3For the following reasons, the motion is granted. The Plaintiff’s action is dismissed.
Costs
4The parties shall deliver their costs submissions in writing. The City of Mississauga shall file within 30 calendar days of today. The Plaintiff shall file within 30 calendar days of his receipt of the other side’s submissions. No reply is permitted. Each submission shall be limited to two pages in length, excluding attachments.
The Law
5In terms of the law, I refer the parties to this Court’s recent decision in CWB Leasing Inc. v. 2536967 Ontario Ltd., 2022 ONSC 6571, at paragraphs 18-20.
Analysis
6Assessing the case for Mr. Sood at its highest, this Court is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial. Simply put, there is no evidence of a deficiency or a state of disrepair that could give rise to liability on the part of the City of Mississauga.
7It is unfortunate that Mr. Sood tripped and fell as he stepped off the curb at the place in question, causing him to be injured. But not every accidental injury on municipal property gives rise to liability on the part of the municipality.
8Mr. Sood makes two points. First, that the height difference in the concrete at the location of the accident is about 5.8 centimetres, which height exceeds that permitted (2 centimetres) under section 16.1 of Ontario Regulation 239/02, Municipal Act, 2001. Second, that the lack of any colour and/or height difference in the concrete around the location of the curb is, itself, a deficiency. Mr. Sood, in aid of these submissions, took the Court to his affidavit sworn on October 26, 2022, the photographs at Exhibits A, D, and E.
9With respect, the first point has no merit. That section of that Regulation does not apply as it deals with sidewalk surface discontinuities (including height differences). This case has nothing to do with an alleged discontinuity within a sidewalk. The trip occurred stepping off a curb, away from the sidewalk.
10The second point, while more relevant than the first, is not supported by any evidence, expert or non-expert, apart from Mr. Sood’s own bald assertion that the lack of any readily apparent difference in colour and/or height is, without more, a deficiency that the City of Mississauga could be held liable for. Put another way, there is a complete absence in the record of any evidence that the said fact, if it is a fact, is at all unusual, or abnormal, or against some municipal regulation, or contrary to the industry standard, or anything along those lines, such that it could lead to a finding of negligence against the City of Mississauga.
11Negligence is the crux of the Plaintiff’s action. This Court has reviewed his Statement of Claim.
12There is no genuine issue requiring a trial, therefore, on the very first criterion that must be met to succeed on this type of cause of action – that the municipality failed to keep the road in question in a reasonable state of repair, in other words, that there was a deficiency. Fordham v. Dutton-Dunwich (Municipality), 2014 ONCA 891, at paragraph 26.
Conclusion
13These reasons explain to Mr. Sood why, despite his unfortunate accident and resulting injury, his claim must be dismissed summarily. It stands no chance of success at trial.
Conlan J.
Date: December 13, 2022